It is perverse to suggest that managed heathland and scrub poses a greater fire risk than unmanaged Heath and scrub, when in fact the opposite in true! Areas of continuous gorse and scrub pose a much more serious threat than open well managed heathland. As has been highlighted in the recent fire at Hartlebury Common which was in an area of almost pure gorse and scrub. The very habitat that you seek to increase!

#58: Choose a nickname - Fire risk

You see, it's easy to get your argument wrong if you do not read clearly what I have said which is;

That by REDUCING scrub and tree cover and Widening the cover of heath and reducing natural fire breaks by installing heath do add up to an increased risk of fire.

You WILL create a drier more fire prone enviroment because the trees and scrub create shade and lock moisture into the ground, Green ground cover and wet or damp mulch underneath juvenile trees is not particulary flamable.

There were no trees at the site of the fire, just gorse which had become flamable because we are experiencing the driest spring since 1910.

Therefore, expanding heath area, climate change,  windier weather, site on top of a hill, drier heath for longer periods, lack of natural firebreaks and the historic tendacy for the heath to be arsoned.

What makes you think I want an increase in scrub and gorse?

Do you think felling the pine plantation and the two adjacent decidious plantations will make the common less prone to fire?

Well managed heath eh, like this, the future of hartlebury Common?

 

"The Dorset Heathland Project was set up in 1989 in order to offset continuing losses of lowland heathland and to reduce fragmentation, through a programme of land management advice and habitat restoration.

The Project ran two teams, restoring heaths in the Avon Valley and Purbeck, mainly by removing invading trees.  In 2003, the Project celebrated the milestone achievement of restoring over 1,000 hectares of lowland heath, successfully demonstrating that large-scale lowland heath restoration is a viable proposition."

 

And then this happens            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-13716970

 

Manage the site, conserve what is there by all means, but in 1976, these fires were a daily occurence throughout the land.  Increasing fire risk by disregarding common sense in favour of rote arguments is not good enough. I am not in favour of a preponderence of anything, is that so wrong when 80% of the common is open space and heath anyway?

Is that really perverse?, I don't think so and most people agree. You cannot fathom the land and the way man and nature can interact from text books.

 

#58: Choose a nickname - Fire risk

In response again to you Fire risk comments.

What is more likeley to catch fire, trees and woodland and heath, or heath.

Historically, fires have always started on the unwooded areas and always will.

The fires will always choose the areas you want to expand, heath.

The Dorset fires followed on from exactly the same scheme as is being carried out at Hartlebury Common.

At Hartlebury however, the risks are far higher because of an additional list of factors which elevate flamability.